The Center on International Relations

Humanitarian Aid as Soft Power

2009-10-14T14:45:00.000-07:00

When people talk about "power" in an international relations context, it is frequently presumed to refer to the use or threat of military force by one country to influence another. This ignores so-called "soft power," which is the process of using positive incentives to promote peace and cooperation between nations. The United States sponsors many civilian agencies and organizations engaged in propagating U.S. soft power, from the Peace Corps to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. But since 2007, the government called on the United States Navy to project its own form of soft power in the form of roving hospital ships charged with providing medical care to people in developing countries.

The U.S. Navy has a long history of providing emergency medical assistance to countries stricken by disaster (such as during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami). But ships like the UNSN Comfort (pictured above) are different; instead of providing short-term disaster relief, these ships cruise from port to port in Latin America, West Africa and Southeast Asia with crews of medical professionals, setting up temporary clinics where they treat the local population for anything from flu to heart surgery. In four months, the USNS Comfort was able to provide health services to 98,000 people in 12 Latin American nations. In total, the program costs roughly $250 million, which is less than 1/10th of 1% of the Department of Defence's $613 Billion dolar budget. The U.S. government hopes that this sort of regular aid will forge closer ties between the beneficiary nations and the U.S. Earlier this year, in an effort to improve its image overseas, the People's Republic of China launched their own hospital ship, which is expected to operate in East and Southeast Asia.

Though this program seems like a win-win for the U.S. (who recieves a boost to their public image) and developing countries (who get access to free and advanced medical treatment), there is room for improvement. While the Comfort treated 98,000 people on its first four-month voyage, this is but a miniscule fraction of the 88 million people who live in extreme poverty in Latin America. The number of impovrished people that the hospital ships can reach is necessarily limited by geography. In order to increase the number of people reached by this program, the United States may have to move away from a sea-based system to one able to reach inland. Also, the humanitarian benefits of these cruises are by neccessity brief; reaching 12 countries in four months means that the Comfort was in each port of call but briefly. Proper investment in improving the health of a population takes time, and transient visits by one U.S. Navy ship per year isn't going to make a permenant impact on overall health conditions Latin America or elsewhere. If the U.S. wants to have a long-term impact on the health of these nations, we need to establish permenent contact between our medical systems, provide medical training to local health workers, and provide funding for hospitals in these places to have better access to equipment and pharmaceuticals.

While the U.S. hospital ship program is not a perfect humanitarian effort, the fact that it puts the people in the developing world in contact with Americans doing beneficial work will almost certainly improve our image among the people of the world.

Ideological International Relations: Maybe a Bad Idea?

2009-03-17T10:17:00.000-07:00

(So, I'm not entirely sure if this is what this blog is after, but here it goes)

This New York Times article details Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Cameroon last Tuesday. In Cameroon's capital, Yaounde, the Pope gave a speech about the Vatican's role in fighting AIDS in Africa. 22 million people in Africa are affected by the disease, according to UNAIDS, two-thirds of all people living with the disease, and home to three-quarters of all AIDS deaths last year. The picture to the right is from the blog "Indigenous People's Rights Today," and shows what percentage of each country's population has either AIDS or is HIV positive. The Pope, however, stated:

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms, on the contrary, it increases the problem."

He went on to say the Vatican wanted to take a major role in the fight against AIDS, but "a responsible and moral attitude toward sex" will help Africa with its AIDS problem more than contraceptives.

What?

This kind of ideology-based international interaction will not solve Africa's AIDS problem any more than the US forcing democracy on a factioned Iraq will end sectarian violence there or blindly protecting Taiwan against Chinese agression because it is a democracy will solve tension between China and the US or China and Taiwan. Cultural, moral and ideological solutions will never have the effect as more pragmatic approaches to international relations. Toward the Vatican's policy, Rebecca Hodes, the director of policy, communication and research at the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said:

''Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans,''

The Vatican's paternalistic, condescending stance toward AIDS in Africa will not help the people of Africa the way that practical solutions would. International Relations should not be a forum for projecting what one culture considers "moral" or "right" onto another, and adhering to ideology when dealing with international problems will not help the populations involved. The US especially has used ideology as a guiding principle in international relations for too long. Take the Iraq war, for an example. Trying to force the Iraqi population into US ideology has not, so far, been able to quell sectarian violence. Maybe instead we should focus on building infrastructure and economic development in order to extablish the kind of multi-party democracy that could assure each group they would have a say in the government, just like investments in education and birth control in Africa could help the people there beat AIDS faster than abstinence-only advice. But that's just my opinion.

War Crimes Tribunals

2009-03-15T14:04:00.001-07:00

The ICC is receiving increasing attention in world politics as it moves forward in the case against the president of Sudan. As this international body continues to seek legitimacy and international standing, it is good to look upon the adhoc tribunals formed before the existence of this body.

The ICTY is one of those tribunals, formed in the aftermath of the genocide in the former Yugoslavia. This Monday, March 16th, the Roosevelt Institution has the unique opportunity to explore this tribunal with Dr. Robert Donia.

Dr. Donia is an expert witness at the Hague. Throughout the years he has played an integral part in establishing historical testimony on Yugoslavia.

From 7-8:30pm in the Betty Ford Room of the Ford School he will be presenting on his experiences and then holding a break out discussion. See you there—Stephanie

International Criminal Court (as explained by the BBC)

2009-03-04T06:53:00.000-08:00

With the warrant having been issued for Omar al-Bashir's arrest, the BBC has posted lots of information on their website about both the situation in Sudan and the International Criminal Court. This Q&A about the International Criminal Court is both informative and interesting. A particularly important point concerning al-Bashir's arrest which is addressed in the Q&A is that the court relies heavily on national police forces to carry out any arrests.

The ICC has no police force of its own to track down and arrest suspects. Instead it must rely on national police services to make arrests and seek their transfer to The Hague. [For example] Thomas Lubanga was handed over to the court by authorities in the Congolese capital, Kinshasa.

My question in regards to this particular point is how do you arrest the leader of a country who is still in power and controls the military forces?

Also, check out the questions concerning the role of the U.S. with the International Criminal Court.

Policy Advocacy: Tools and Techniques

2009-02-10T08:13:00.001-08:00

Our first event of the semester is coming up! Read more below:

February 17th, 2009, 7:00-8:30PM
Paul O’Neill Classroom, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
Speakers:
• Conan Smith- Commissioner, Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and Executive Director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance
• Luke Forrest- Public Policy Director, Michigan Suburbs Alliance

Description: This event will be an inside look at advocating for policies on a local level. Speakers will present tools and techniques that can be used in building coalitions to advocate for policies. In addition, they will discuss the importance of framing policy issues for key stakeholders.

Interesting move by Ahmadinejad

2009-02-10T08:01:00.000-08:00

In case you guys haven't seen yet, President Ahmadinejad of Iran in a major address to the Iranian people on the 30th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran seemed to reposition his language and wording and overall stance towards the United States.

From the BBC:

"The new US administration has announced that they want to produce change and pursue the course of dialogue," Mr Ahmadinejad said at a rally in central Tehran attended by tens of thousands of people.
"It is quite clear that real change must be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear the Iranian nation welcomes real changes and is ready for dialogue in a climate of equality and mutual respect."

This follows just a couple of weeks ago where it seemed that Obama and Ahmadinejad were going to continue to struggle and work against each other for the next four years.

Here is the link to the BBC article covering the story.

My question is: what is really going on? Is it possible that Ahmadinejad is looking for a new era in relations with the west and the US specifically? Or, is this more empty political rhetoric that should be viewed skeptically?

Blogging for Roosevelt

2009-02-08T21:36:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone, I've been thinking about what my vision is for the IR blog, and how we, as center members, can best execute this vision. My thoughts are as following: in creating a blog, we are creating a space to further our center's discussions, open ourselves up for more critical academic discourse, and creating a space to publish our policy ideas. Our blog should be both an academic and professional space—something that we would be proud to list on our resume.

That being said, I am going to lay out some guidelines for what is, and conversely what is not, appropriate for the IR blog. These guidelines are meant to ensure that we respect ourselves and our readership by creating a quality and thought-provoking product. While blogs are inherently more personal and spontaneous than other forms of writing, we need to approach this space as a representation of both ourselves and Roosevelt as a whole, and not just the convergence of the wayward opinions of an uninformed person. Here are the guidelines:

1. Posts should be based on policy. This means that they are either direct compositions of your well thought out policies, or a well-informed critique of someone else.

2. Posts should cite sources, and provide hyperlinks to these sources when necessary and relevant.

3. Posts should be respectful.

These guidelines are simple, but they should help inform any posts you make. Thank you—Stephanie